It is hysterics. You're trying to draw a corollary between me saying that punishments for DUI should be consistent with the crime to some idea that I have little to no desire to punish child molesters.
Reading comprehension is lacking in many of your posts. Here’s what I am saying: Your lax view of drunk driving is in line with your lax view of child molestation. Both positions are utterly absurd. I am not drawing any type of connection between the two crimes. At all.
Now for the rest of this tripe. Me saying that an accident is an accident does not remove fault.
You are saying that these people are unintentionally harming others. If it’s unintentional, there is no fault involved. Fault assumes culpability which you have clearly denied in these cases.
The individual is still accountable for their actions and proper punishment may be handed out. So now that we’ve gotten rid of that lie, we can move on.
There is no lie as you put it. You have argued in this thread that current laws need to be reversed which is idiotic, window-linking nonsense.
It is rarely the intent of a drunk driver to get into a wreck and hurt another.
While drunk, they are obviously in an altered state of mind, but not before getting drunk. This is where intention comes into it. After all,
how many times does a person need to make the same mistake before it becomes intentional?
Though if you can prove that intent in a court of law, you are more than free to do so.
Lol I doubt it. There are plenty of morons who think exactly like you. Meanwhile, people keep dying.
Nearly 11,000 people lose their lives each year because of drunk drivers. (according to the CDC) But the current laws need to be reversed according to you. Justice for those whose lives have been destroyed is “emotional tripe” in your opinion.
Reckless endangerment and voluntary manslaughter already cover this crime. One could say that a person knows their car itself is a dangerous weapon and not paying attention (whether or not one is under the influence) means intent. Anyone who has gotten into a wreck while putting on makeup, changing the radio station, talking on the phone, etc. could then (under your definition) be guilty of first degree, premeditated murder should they have a wreck which takes the life of another. Of course under those circumstances, it too is an accident as there is no actual intent to harm. But you want to insert it into places where it does not exist; so we can see how far down the rabbit hole this lack of logic goes.
Repeated offenses by drunk driving do not compare to any of your hyperbolic examples. I doubt you even bothered to stop and consider what I’ve actually proposed.
Proper punishment for a crime, not excessive punishment built upon emotional tripe.
What proper punishment? You haven’t proposed any so far.
The abdication of intelligence in this country is quite alarming.
Yes, your posts are a fine example of that.
I think your problem is that you wish to legally redefine "premeditation" and "intent". Good luck with that.
I think your problem is that you really have no concept of what intent actually entails, nor do you have any real idea of what constitutes justice. It’s easy to pretend that a lighter punishment for drunk drivers will solve the problem when your real issue is how stricter punishments go against your sentiments. Plenty of people in this thread have mentioned that stricter punishments “ruin the lives” of these drunk drivers. This is the real concern for them. The drunks. Victims are apparently not victims—they are just people in the wrong place at the wrong time. Accidents do happen after all.
Well, Hell... I drive drunk almost every day and see nothing wrong with it at all.
Interesting sense of humor. Ha! You’re on a role, Bodhi.
